~~NG

l\epublic of tbe ~biltppines

~upreme QCourt
manila
SECOND DIVISION

BATANGUENO HUMAN A.C. No.13443

RESOURCES, INC., as [Formerly CBD Case No. 19-6136]
represented by JOSELITO S.
ATIENZA,
Complainant, Present:
LEONEN, ·8.A.J., Chairperson,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
- versus - LOPEZ, M.
LOPEZ, J., and
KHO, JR., JJ.

ATTY. PRECY C. DE JESUS,*

Respondent. Promulgated:

DECO 7 2022 --
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x

DECISION

KHO, JR., J.:

For the Court's resolution is a Complaint 1 filed by complainant

Batanguefio Human Resources, Inc. (BHRI), as represented by its President,
Joselito S. Atienza, against respondent Atty. Precy C. De Jesus (respondent)
before the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) for violation of the Lawyer's
Oath and the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR).

The Facts

In its letter-complaint, BHRI, a recruitment agency, alleged that it

deployed several persons to Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, under a one-
year contract duly approved by the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency
(POEA), and that before the lapse of their contract, they were repatriated to
the Philippines. Upon such repatriation, said employees, with the assistance
of respondent as their counsel, filed a case against BHRI before the National
Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) seeking that they be paid for the

• "Atty. Percy C. De Jesus" ;n some parts ofthe ro/lo.

1 Rollo, pp. 1-7.
Decision 2 A.C. No. 13443

"unexpired portion" of their respective contracts. The employees, through

respondent, filed their Position Paper. 2

When BHRI perused the employees' Position Paper and attachments, it

noticed that the employees' POEA-approved contract attached to the Position
Paper was altered. In particular, Clause 16 of the contract- which allows the
termination of the employment contract before the expiration of the one-year
period, provided that the project covered by such contract has been completed
- had been unduly erased. Believing that such erasure was intentional, BHRI
wrote letters to the employees, as well as to respondent, asking them to explain
the glaring falsification as above-described. In response, the employees
denied their participation in the deletion, claiming that they merely submitted
their respective contracts to respondent. On the other hand, respondent
conceded that the deletion of Clause 16 was done surreptitiously but without
her permission, and that she apologized to BHRI and its counsel for the said
deletion. She likewise admitted that: (a) the position papers she submitted in
the labor case were outsourced from pleaders she contracted; ( b) she did not
properly supervise said pleaders in drafting the same; and (c) she met with the
repatriated workers only once prior to the filing of the position paper, and that
it was just a mere short conversation for around ten minutes. Moreover,
respondent, in explaining that she was not charging any fee at the onset,
claimed that "all expenses from the drafting of pleadings, photocopy, and
notary were shouldered by the law office." Due to the foregoing, BHRI was
constrained to file the instant administrative disciplinary Complaint against
respondent. 3

In her Verified Answer, 4 respondent claimed that the preparation of the

position papers of her clients, including herein repatriated employees, was
outsourced to nonlawyers, and that she learned only of the issue of the
omission of Clause 16 in the Reply to the position paper filed by BHRI' s
lawyer. She further alleged that upon learning that the POEA-approved
contracts attached to the Position Paper were tampered, she immediately filed
a pleading which sought to adopt the untampered version of the contract. She
then averred that she explained said inadvertence with BHRI and its lawyers,
and that since then, she already withdrew her appearance in the case. 5

The IBP's Report and Recommendation

In its Report and Recommendation 6 dated March 4, 2020, the IBP

Investigating Commissioner (IC) recommended that respondent be found
administratively liable for violation of Rules 9.01 and 9.02, Canon 9 and Rule

2
Id. at 22-45.
3
Id. at 670-67 l.
4
Id. at 202-206.
5 Id. at 671-672.
6
Id. at 668-675. Signed by Commissioner Jose Alfonso M. Gomos.
Decision 3 A.C. No. 13443

18.02, Canon 18 of the CPR, and that, accordingly, she be suspended from the
practice of law for a period of at least one year. 7

In so recommending, the IC found that respondent violated Rule 18.02,

Canon 18 of the CPR when she admitted that: (a) her law office has a template
for pleadings in labor cases depending on the kind oflabor complaint, and that
even nonlawyers or underbar can prepare the pleadings; (b) due to high
volumes of cases, she was not able to properly supervise the outsourced cases,
including the subject labor case; (c) she met her clients in the subject labor
case only once and for more or less than ten minutes; and (cl) she was not able
to go through the Position Paper before signing it. 8 Moreover, the IC found
that respondent likewise violated Rules 9.01 and 9.02, Canon 9 of the CPR
when she admitted that she outsourced the drafting of the pleadings to
nonlawyers. 9

In a Notice of Resolution in Resolution No. CBD-XXV-2022-02-46IO

dated February 24, 2022, the IBP Board of Governors (IBP-BG) modified the
Report and Recommendation of the IC, and accordingly, decreased
respondent's penalty of suspension from the practice of law to three months.
In mitigating respondent's liability, the IBP-BG observed that she has no prior
administrative case, and that she had shown remorse and had apologized to
BHRI for her infraction. 11

The Issue before the Court

The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not respondent
should be held administratively 1iable for the acts complained of.

The Court's Ruling

The Court affirms the findings and adopts the recommendation of the
IBP, with modification as to the penalty imposed.

Rules 18.02 and 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR provide:

CANON 18 - A LA WYER SHALL SERVE HIS CLIENT WITH COMPETENCE
AND DILIGENCE.

xxxx
RULE 18.02 - A lawyer shall not handle any legal matter without
adequate preparation.
RULE 18.03 - A la\\--yer shall not neglect a legal matter entrusted to
him, and his negligence in connection therewith shall render him liable.

7
Id. at 675.
8
Id. at 673-674.
9
Id. at 674.
10
Id. at 666-667. Signed by National Secretary Doroteo Lorenzo B. Aguila.
11
Id. at 666.
Decision 4 A.C. No. 13443

In this regard, case law instructs that"[o]nee a lawyer agrees to take up

the cause of a client, the lawyer owes fidelity to such cause and must always
be mindful of the trust and confidence reposed in him. He owes entire
devotion to the interest of the client, warm zeal in the maintenance and defense
of his client's rights, and the exertion of his utmost learning and ability to the
end that nothing be taken or withheld from his client, save by the rules of law,
legally applied. A lawyer who performs his duty with diligence and candor
not only protects the interest of his client, he also serves the ends of justice,
does honor to the bar, and helps maintain the respect of the community to the
legal profession." 12

Here, respondent miserably failed to comply with these tenets. As she

herself admitted: (a) she merely "outsourced" the drafting of her clients'
Position Paper and did not properly supervise such drafting; and (b) she
merely met her clients once and only engaged them in more or less than a ten-
minute conversation. More significantly, it appears that she did not even
scrutinize the draft of the Position Paper before signing and filing it to the
NLRC, thus, paving the way for the submission of the altered contracts to the
said Tribunal. Verily, when a lawyer takes a client's cause, they covenant that
they will exercise due diligence in protecting his or her rights. The failure to
exercise that degree of vigilance ana attention expected of a good father of a
family makes such lawyer unworthy of the trust reposed in them by their client
and makes them answerable not just to his or her client but also to the legal
profession, the courts and society, 13 as in this case.

Moreover, the Court also notes that as counsel of record of the

employees who signed the Position Paper on their behalf, her responsibility
as such is governed by Section 3, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
(the prevailing Rules at the time the pleading was filed), which reads:

Section 3. Signature and address. - Every pleading must be

signed by the party or counsel representing him, stating in either case his
address which should not be a post office box.

The signature of counsel constitutes a certificate by him that he

has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information,
and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not
interposed for delay.

An unsigned pleading produces no legal effect. However, the court

may., in its discretion, allow such deficiency to be remedied if it shall appear
that the same was due to mere inadvertence and not intended for delay.
Counsel who deliberately files an unsigned pleading, or signs a pleading
in violation of this Rule, or alleges scandalous or indecent matter
therein, or fails to promptly report to the court a change of his address,
shall be subiect to appropriate disciplinary action. (emphases and
underscoring supplied)

12 Ba/dado v. Mejica, 706 Phil. I, 13 (2013).

13 Reyes v. Vitan, 496 Phil. 1, 5 (2005). citing Santos v. Lazaro, 445 Phil. I (2003).
Decision 5 A.C. No. 13443

Thus, respondent's act of signing her clients' Position Paper is

essentially a certification from her that she has read it, that she knew it to be
meritorious, and it was not for the purpose of delaying the case. More
importantly, it was her signature on said Position Paper which supplied the
same with legal effect and elevated its status from a mere scrap of paper to
that of a legal document. 14 Thus, by admitting that she was not the one who
drafted the Position Paper and merely signed the same, she has committed a
violation of this rule - an act of falsehood which is a ground for subjecting
her to disciplinary action.

Furthermore, by admitting that she merely "outsourced" the drafting of

the Position Paper to nonlawyers (who are most likely paid for such service),
respondent likewise violated Rules 9.01 and 9.02, Canon 9 of the CPR when
she allowed nonlawyers to engage in unauthorized practice of law, viz.:

CANON 9 - A LA WYER SHALL NOT, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, ASSIST

IN THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW.

RULE 9.01 - A lawyer shall not delegate to any unqualified person

the performance of any task which by law may only be performed by a
member of the bar in good standing.

RULE 9.02 -A lawyer shall not divide or stipulate to divide a fee for
legal services with persons not licensed to practice law xx x

The lawyer's duty to prevent, or at the very least not to assist in,
the unauthorized practice of law is founded on public interest and policy.
Public policy requires that the practice of law be limited to those individuals
found duly qualified in education and character. The permissive right
conferred on the lawyer is an individual and limited privilege subject to
withdrawal if he or she fails to maintain proper standards of moral and
professional conduct. The purpose is to protect the public, the court, the client,
and the Bar from the incompetence or dishonesty of those unlicensed to
practice law and not subject to the disciplinary control of the Court. It
devolves upon a lawyer to see that this purpose is attained. Thus, the canons
and ethics of the profession enjoin lawyers not to permit their professional
services or name to be used in aid of, or to make possible
the unauthorized practice of law by, any agency, personal or corporate. And,
the law makes it a misbehavior on the lawyer's part, subject to disciplinary
action, to aid a layman in the unauthorized practice of law. 15 Suffice it to say
that respondent also failed in this regard.

In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that there is substantial

evidence to hold respondent administratively liable, and accordingly, must be
sanctioned therefor.

14
See Spouses Mariano v. Abrajano, A.C. No. 12690. April 26, 2021, citing lacurom v. Jacoba, 519 Phil.
195, 207 (2006 ).
15 Plus Builders, Inc. v. Revilla. .Jr., 53J Phil. 250, 2<,2---263 (2006).
Decision 6 A.C. No. 13443

In Spouses Mariano v. Abrqjano, 16 the erring lawyer who violated

Section 3, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure was given a reprimand
with a stern warning. In Ba/dado v. Mejica, 17 a lawyer who violated Rules
18.02 and 18.03, Canon 18 of the CPR was suspended for three months, a
mitigated penalty on account of his inexperience as a lawyer who recently
passed the Bar examinations. In Ang v. Gupana 18 and Petela v. Rivera, 19 the
Court suspended therein erring lawyers for one ( 1) year for violating, among
others, Rule 9.01, Canon 9 of the CPR.

Given the circumstances of this case - and taking into consideration

that this is respondent's first offense and that she had shown extreme remorse
for her actions - the Court deems it appropriate to impose on her the penalty
of suspension from the practice of law for a period of six months, with a stern
warning that the commission of the same or similar offense in the future shall
be dealt with more severely.

As a final note, it must be emphasized that membership in the legal

profession is bestowed upon individuals who are not only learned in law, but
also known to possess good moral character. Lawyers should act and comport
themselves with honesty and integrity in a manner beyond reproach, in order
to promote the public's faith in the legal profession. Verily, of all classes and
professions, lawyers are most sacredly bound to uphold the law, and as such,
it is imperative that they live by the law. 20

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Atty. Precy C. De Jesus (respondent) is

found GUILTY of violating Section 3, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rules 9.01 and 9.02, Canon 9, and Rules 18.02 and 18.03, Canon
18 of the Code of Professional Responsibility. She is SUSPENDED from the
practice of law for a period of six months, and is STERNLY WARNED that
a repetition of the same offense or similar act shall be dealt with more
severely.

The suspension from the practice of law shall take effect immediately
upon receipt of this Decision by respondent. She is DIRECTED to
immediately file a manifestation to the Court that her suspension has started,
copy furnished all courts and quasi-judicial bodies where she has entered her
appearance as counsel.

Let copies of this Decision be furnished to the Office of the Bar

Confidant to be appended to respon,dent's personal record as an attorney; the
Integrated Bar of the Philippines f-or its inf01mation and guidance; and the
Office of the Court Administrator for circulation to all courts in the country.

16
Supra.
17 Supra note 12, at 13.
18
726Phil. l27(2014).
19
See A.C. No. 10408, October 16, 2019.
20
See Rivera v. Dalangin, A.C. No. 12724, July 28, 2020.
Decis_:_on 7 A.C. No. 13443

SO ORDERED.

~~
Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

Senior Associate Justice

Chairperson

____.
AMY C. LAZARO-JAVIER
Associate Justice

JHOSE~OPEZ
Associate Justice